Obama in Oklahoma

Self-fulfilling prophecies

ONE of the notable results on Super Tuesday was that Barack Obama—the sitting president, who is not facing any serious opposition for this year's Democratic presidential nomination—won the Democratic primary in Oklahoma with a mere 57% of the vote, and lost 15 counties, 12 of them to an anti-abortion activist running a shoestring campaign. Aaron Blake, at the Washington Post, wonders why Oklahoma is "so anti-Obama":

While Oklahoma is certainly a conservative state, it's not necessarily the state you would think would be the most opposed to Obama in the U.S.. In fact, in the most recent Gallup state rankings, Oklahoma wasn't even listed among the 10 most conservative states in the country.

He cites a number of factors for the president's poor showing among Oklahoma Democrats. Mr Obama has never been hugely popular in the state; John McCain carried it with about two-thirds of the vote in 2008. His policies have been unpopular; Oklahoma is hugely enthusiastic for oil and natural gas, and Mr Obama has been cautious about both industries, as over the Keystone XL pipeline. The demographics don't do him any favours; Oklahoma is older and much whiter than the national electorate. Even though Oklahoma does have some Democrats, they're not the type of Democrats who favour Mr Obama, being of the "agrarian populist tradition", as pollster Keith Gaddie notes, rather than the Great Society side of the party. In other words, Oklahoma, more than most states, is unpromising territory for a candidate like Mr Obama. Sounds about right.

With that said, I would add a note of caution to the idea that Oklahoma is "so anti-Obama". One of the factors that isn't cited here is that Mr Obama, and the national Democratic Party, have devoted relatively little time, money or attention to the state. This isn't a failure of political strategy, nor is it an indication that Mr Obama is "so anti-Oklahoma". It's just that Mr Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee, so there's no pressing need to divert campaign resources to its primary. We can't thereby draw any precise conclusions about how Mr Obama would have performed in Oklahoma had he campaigned there. The same can be said of other states in the neighbourhood. When we consider future Democratic prospects in Texas, for example, we have to give the previous results an asterisk stipulating that in 2008, Democrats didn't put much effort in there. Campaigning presumably has some impact on outcomes; otherwise, people wouldn't do it.

That may sound like quibbling, but it's worth noting, because these narratives can take on more weight than they warrant. Another outcome of the Super Tuesday contests was that Mitt Romney didn't win any Southern states, save Virginia, where it was only he and Ron Paul on the ballot. Newt Gingrich won his home state of Georgia, and Rick Santorum won Oklahoma and Tennessee. This has reinforced the idea that Mr Romney can't connect with Southern Republicans (even though he won the Florida primary) which has, in turn, reinforced the idea that Mr Romney wouldn't be a strong nominee in the general election. And Mr Romney has seemed to confirm the impression that he is the kind of candidate who will naturally struggle in the South, telling an interviewer that next week's Alabama contest will be "a bit of an away game". Last week, my colleague expressed his frustration over "mobius-strip journalism"; this is mobius-strip campaigning, and it's a little frustrating too. With regard to Oklahoma, then—Tuesday's results do call attention to the fact that Mr Obama isn't wildly popular there. He probably won't carry the state in 2012, either. But the more illuminating contests are those where a candidate does campaign, because that's where we can limn a stronger connection between the effort and the outcome.

That also assumes Democrats voted at all: unless there are major ballot measures it's unlikely that most Democrats are voting in the primaries at all. Turn out for the Democratic Primary in Oklahoma was 1/4th of what it was in 2008. I'm not surprised that a small number of angry anti-abortion activists could have a major impact on an election most Democrats ignored.

There is great political significance to the Oklahoma primary but it probably doesn't make much difference for the national election -- which is now Obama's to lose.

A virtually anonymous anti-abortion candidate with a campaign fund about the size of typical weekly family shopping budget managed to beat the president in more than a dozen counties.

In short, abortion is a vital political issue and will continue to be so. For the GOP, it is the gift that keeps on giving: an election issue so potent that a Nobody with no money can out-poll the President of the United States in his own party primary! For the Democrats, it is a millstone practically welded to the party's neck.

This is the nightmare issue of American politics -- one that CANNOT be resolved through the political process through the normal means of adustment and negotiation. Roe v. Wade created a monster issue that impossible to defuse -- one that will smoulder (at the least) for generations to come as it has, already, for two past generations.

There is much talk these days about the "polarization" of politics without much mention of why this is -- and the reason is that a profound moral issue was lobbed into American political life without any means of resolving it. There is no way out.

Liberals think they have history on their side. They do not. I've taught for years in an inner-city Catholic school and the hatred toward Roe and abortion is so intense -- parents and students alike -- that it is almost palpable. There are countless other Catholic institutions and even more (many more) evangelical ones that will continue to make abortion a main issue in American politics for the forseeable future.

My guess is, as I said, that the election if Obama's to lose. But, ANY Democrat starts with an enormous liability: the antipathy of, especially, Catholics and evangelicals offended by abortion.

The GOP starts with a similar liability: the antipathy of those citizens, including feminists, who are offended by the anti-abortion crusade.

In election after election, it often reduces to whichever side has the bigger tin can tied to its tail on this issue.

So, no, what happened in Oklahoma is not indicative of the outcome of the November election.

But, it is indicative of the shape of American politics for generations to come.

Interesting. I was around in 1973 when Roe was handed down, and I cannot remember widespread outrage at the time. This outrage has grown over time, and it seems to have grown in tandem with the growth of evangelical Christianity and the growth in its political power. Now I know quite a few people who are pro choice, but I can't think of anyone I know who is pro abortion. I certainly don't know anyone who thinks abortion is no different from removing a growth on one's body. So there is common ground here, if there was any interest in occupying it. However, launching a real effort to reduce the rates of abortion would require increasing access to contraception. But don't expect anyone who's opposition to abortion is based on the absolutes of theology to want to go there.

QED, Andros. If your objective is to reduce the incidence of abortions to as low as possible, then there is common ground. But if your objective is to impose your theology on the rest of the county, then I guess there isn't.

While you make some valid points, what leads you to say that the church and conservatives "have society refuse to feed, educate and provide education for it." The Catholic Church is the larges charitable organization in the World. The parochial school system, which largely serves the poor, is larger than any public school district in the nation. Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities, the Campaign For Human Development and any number of other Church missions do a far better job at serving the poor than any Federal or State program. And, bye the way, Catholic Schools do have sex ed.

Why then if they are so opposed to abortion do they do nothing to address the issues leading up to it? These same anti-abortion zealots turn green with the idea of discussing sex and teaching children about it. Education is not the devil it is the push they need to understand what is happening to their bodies, with understanding comes the ability to make better decisions. I understand that for millions of celibate priests birth control is an anathema, but sometimes young people do what not in their best interests because their parents are so against it. Youth is a time to explore and they take risks, we provide them with helmets to ride their bikes, make them wear their seat belts, give them vitamins, make them brush their teeth. Availability of birth control is really not all that different. I think if we teach them consequences and provide them with fully disclosed education and access to birth control you won't see a rise in promiscuity but a more knowledgable confident young person. The other issue is that even though the church and conservatives are anti-abortion they are anti-compassion and common sense. If those girls/women are forced to have the unwanted child then they need more support than condemnation, there needs to be a willingness to see that the child is well cared for and doesn't fall into the dark hole of poverty and neglect only to grow up and repeat the parents mistakes. It makes no sense to mandate the birth of a child and then have society refuse to feed, educate and provide education for it. I don't really believe in abortion but I believe even less in the birth of a child that the conservative society and church will condemn and refuse to offer it the love and support in deserves. I really don't think the anti-abortion faction can have it both ways, if the child is born then there is a responsibility to care for it.

This is news? There isn't a Democratic candidate in America who could win in Oklahoma today or in the next 10 years either. It is a state that has some of the lowest union representation in the US, is slightly more white and older than the 2010 US census (norm), is more blue-collar than the norm, has an overall population with lower education status than the US norm, and has a ton of people that would be lumped into 'evangelical category.'
Hell, only the reddest of red conservative can win federal elections there too in the GOP. Inhofe is arguably the most conservative senator today in DC. My favorite though is that he pretty makes no secret of it that will not hire a gay/lesbian staffer in any capacity where in DC or at home. Coburn is the other and he isn't running again in 2016 for a 3rd time.
In order to get through the primary, the candidate will have to be white, an evangelical (e.g., Southern baptist) or a Presbyterian, married with a large family, a rabid supporter of Israel, ardent against any form of new gov't tax revenues, a supporter of traditional energy, an aggressive military foreign policy backed by a large national military, etc.
No Democrats in the state would fit that bill and there aren't a ton of GOP members necessarily that due either.

Same idiots who are paying a real premium yet again before a presidential election because of the fears that Obama will somehow magically decree (without Congressional approval) and severely limit gun ownership rights. Nevermind this is exactly the OPPOSITE trend at the state level or that Democrats won't have majorities in the Senate/House need to pass any kind of such legislation nor did they in the 2 Congresses where they had majorities.
It is just dealers/sellers marking up prices and taking at least 10-20% premium (especially an certain types of ammo) more from rubes and paranoid folks.

Andros, you are confusing two very different things. You are trying to pull a bait and switch by confusing civil rights with natural rights. Whether or not you believe in natural rights, the rights of the American people are also protected by being recognized in the Constitution, which is in turn backed up by the force of law. As Joe pointed out, there's people with guns who took an oath to defend it.

I don't need to delve into the recesses of political philosophy to say that Americans do have rights, and that Supreme Court decisions are enforced. The majority of certain jurisdictions were not able to disobey a certain Warren decision that they objected to. Their opposition was on the other side of the barrels of the 401st Airborne under the command of a commander and chief who, although he had personal reservations, believed in the principle of protecting the Constitution, no matter the political cost. It happened.

Nice try at analogy, but it fails. People who would, like myself, prefer prevention [prophylaxis] to abortion, and who think that abortion should be legal, safe but rare, and who insist that the life and health of the mother requires that it be an option in case of necessity, can not reasonably be labelled pro-abortion, or pro-death, except by someone who is a pro-pagandist.

2. No -- I never said the judges are priests. I used the metaphor of a priesthood to explicate how the court actually functions. Again, I apologize if I confused you.

3. The "rule of law" is a fine notion. It exists because "we" say so. If "we" say it does not exist, then it does not exist. It is a fine notion-- nothing more. It has no objective reality -- although it may be wise to act if though it did.

4. I don't know what enhances our "republican civics" but if a minority religious authority can impose its will -- and it has as much "right" under our Constitution you so revere to do so as any other group -- then that is that.

5. I think the idea of inherent "rights" (absent belief in a Deity) is a useful fiction. If these rights have an objective existence -- like trees and martinis -- please point out to me where they dwell so I can take a digital photo and share it on Facebook.

Myself, I believe "rights" are simply an extension of force. (Unless, as I say, one puts them in the gift of a Deity.)

"through the universally accepted principle (in America, at least) of majority rule." - Andros
I don't accept this principle. I don't know how I feel about abortion, but I do think it should be decided by justices, not demagogues. The rights I have, to choose my own religion, to own a gun, and to speak freely are not up for a vote. It should be the same for women.

The DNC made the right decision with regard to Oklahoma-- the state is not in play, and even if an outsider won the primary, the Obama campaign should have no real issues garnering delegates to win the candidacy. The capital, financial and political, is better spent in the battlegrounds, and Oklahoma is definitely not in that category.

"I think the idea of inherent "rights" (absent belief in a Deity) is a useful fiction."

I agree that the idea of inherent 'rights' is a useful fiction, having improved the quality of life among untold millions/billions of humans.

This stands in stark contrast to the idea of a Deity, which has caused no end of murderous conflict among populations who have invented different supernatural rulers/creators, or even different variations of abasing oneself before the putatively identical God...